And he's wrong.
According to Rubalcava, the biggest barrier to carrying out terrorist plans until now has been the risk of getting caught or killed by law enforcement so that only depraved hatred, or religious fervor has been able to motivate someone to take on those risks as part of a plan to harm other people.
No. Because look the times when we have caught the criminal. We cannot stop them from setting off a bomb, but we will catch them after they do so.
So to be a terrorist you have to be willing to die or to spend the rest of your life in prison.
"A burner email account, a prepaid debit card purchased with cash, and an account, tied to that burner email, with an AV car service will get him a long way to being able to place explosives near crowds, without ever being there himself."
But it will not stop him from being found AFTERWARDS.
Because those actions leave traces. And you will be spending the rest of your life in jail.
Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.
No. You're confusing two different scenarios and ASSUMING that the technique that worked in one scenario WOULD BE THE ONLY TECHNIQUE USED in the other scenario.
"That shutdown could stretch from temporary to quasi-permanent with ease, as security professionals grapple with the technical challenge of distinguishing between safe, legitimate payloads and payloads that are intended to harm."
It COULD. But more likely it won't.
Mostly because he's assuming that an autonomous car will be exactly like a current car + driver